Something is keeping demographers awake at night, and it’s not night feeds. Birth rates are falling worldwide, and fears of a population collapse are circling.
Globally, 70 per cent of people live in a country with an insufficient number of live births to sustain the population. By 2100, 23 nations are expected to see their populations halve.
This, however, is not attributed to a shrinking number of children per woman but to childlessness. There has been a huge increase in the number of people without a single child, and the question we need to ask is: Why?
From Childless to ‘Childfree’
The voluntary childless movement started in 1970s California, with the aim of making it socially acceptable to remain a non-parent. The decision was partly guided by a deep fear of overpopulation, something that persists today. Groups like Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil blame global warming on the sheer number of people using the planet’s finite resources.
Today, there is a new word for those who choose not to have children: Childfree. And, according to experts, there are plenty of reasons not to want a family. The 2008 financial crash, the cost-of-living crisis, housing shortages coupled with unaffordable housing, and the stress of dealing with kids’ exams within a largely inefficient education system are enough to put anyone off reproducing. The world is arguably at a pivotal moment. Once upon a time, a sustained birthrate was the hallmark of having survived a crisis. Now it looks like the opposite might be the case.
What is it about modern life that’s driving women away from becoming parents? And how did we get from childless to ‘childfree’ as though it were a badge of honour? I have spoken to three working mums to try and find out.
The Work-Life Imbalance
If a mother works, it’s safe to assume her partner does too, which means having to rely on nursery care. Nursery fees are nothing short of extortionate. In Wales, a crèche place costs £60 per day, which comes to £1,680 a month. In London, a couple can expect to pay £3,500 a month for daycare and rent alone, with annual preschool fees reaching £27,000 and above per child.
One working mother tells me she ‘knows women who’ve had abortions for economic reasons, because having a child would put them below the poverty line.’
Even with a double income, many families find themselves ‘drowning in childcare costs, higher than the monthly mortgage.’ This is a typical Catch-22. Parents need to work to cover the childcare fees, but the fees only need covering because no one can afford to stay at home with the sprog. Modern parents spend significant time away from their children to earn money that’s devoured by childcare costs. The irony is so obvious it’s not even amusing. I am told that the post-childcare earnings are ‘negligible.’ A child’s earliest years are meant to be formative, yet parents miss this crucial bonding phase to earn a living that barely satisfies economic needs and leaves everyone worse off.
This is ‘the saddest thing ever seen, where parents work to fund an upbringing without doing the upbringing.’ But this is just the start. There is also an emotional toll. Women feel ‘guilt and shame from outsourcing parental duties.’ One working mother describes the first three weeks of using childcare as ‘the worst of my life’.
Tiredness is another huge factor. After a day teaching other people’s children, one mum has ‘very little time and patience for [her] own.’ Dual-earner families get ‘so little’ time together and find themselves ‘parenting usually solo’. Cynics have been quick to accuse the childfree movement of rejecting a ‘traditional life script’ and disrupting the age-old family model. But in actuality, the need for dual incomes is largely doing that job. Today’s working parents must jump through hoops to achieve anything like the default setup of yesteryear. For many, the capacity to rejig their timetables for more family time depends on ‘sheer luck.’
A working mum of one works traditional hours while her partner does shift work. The three spend three evenings a week (5-8 pm) together, plus Sundays after 7 pm. But this small sphere of normalcy is only possible because Dad undertakes shifts at extremely antisocial hours, and because the family is supported by a relative. Twice a week, the child is cared for by his great aunt, who is described as a ‘lifeline.’ Without her support, the couple would face ‘devastating childcare costs,’ in spite of their dual incomes.
Feminism Entrapped by Capitalism
Inflation and the high cost of living further contribute to family woes. High prices have ‘made having children a luxury few millennials can afford.’ To make matters worse, rising prices mean many grandparents cannot afford to retire. The phenomenon of ‘Grandma’s for half-term’ is now a rare treat confined to the display case of millennial history, on loan to a very lucky few.
So, how did we get to the point where most two-parent families are ‘dual earner’? In the same way that Margaret Thatcher saw untold profit in vacant office space, the system now sees both sexes as a means for generating more wealth. If something doesn’t ‘spark off new markets,’ then it’s largely seen as a ‘wasted opportunity.’ The traditional nurturing role once occupied by women has effectively been labelled economically inefficient and pronounced obsolete.
In short, parenting — ‘the hardest job you’ll ever do’ — is no longer seen as real work. And yet, we now have paid childminders to supervise other people’s kids, as well as wet nurses and private nannies who continue to be paid comfortable salaries for doing a job that was once performed by most working-class mothers.
Just when did we decide that raising a family is not a sound career choice?
The application of absolute Capitalism may offer clues. Capitalism tends to ruthlessly ‘erode anything in the natural world’ for profit, so it’s not ‘unusual’ that motherhood has been ‘commodified in the same way,’ and viewed in the same light as factory work. As technology advances, a worker, according to Karl Marx, becomes ‘an appendage of the machine’. Diminished effort means a reduced wage, and this extends to the role of a Mother. Widespread household and baby care gadgets economise effort, so the maternal role is considered significantly less valuable.
Misogynists like to blame the increased number of working women since the 1970s for the declining birth rate. However, the working mothers I spoke with, ‘don’t think it’s Feminism that got us here’. Instead, they put it down to the ‘commodification of feminism and womanhood’ by the twin forces of Capitalism and consumerism. In other words, Feminism has been hijacked by Capitalism.
So, What About Feminism?
The body needs seven years to readjust after giving birth, but paid maternity leave in the UK usually lasts no more than a year. Many mothers have no choice but to return to work much sooner to avoid seeing their salaries slashed. Staying at home to raise your child until school age is a rarity, and re-entering the workplace after five years away is generally treated with hostility. ‘You’ve gotta start right from scratch,’ confesses one mother. The sacrifice is hardly rewarded. There is a correlation between motherhood and poverty, with working mothers earning 12-20 per cent less than childfree women.
Feminism famously sought to ‘liberate women from the obligation of being a housewife.’ But the fight for women to earn their own money has been exploited and ‘reduced to profit and productivity.’ Today’s working mums don’t have the time for pick-ups and drop-offs because ‘Capitalism masculinises what it is to be a woman.’ The Mayor, Sadiq Khan, wants to revoke working from home, something that has allowed families more time together by cutting the commute. This substantiates one working mum’s claim that ‘workplaces could become more feminised if they wanted, the choice is not to.’
The irony here is that a movement for equality has produced the polar opposite, but not of its own making. Feminism has been twisted out of shape and commercialised by the capitalist system, making the working ‘option’ for women a default and parenting, as one working mum describes, ‘such a trip.’
By merging feminism and consumerism, choice has largely been removed for women. One mum who works in education tells me ‘ I would love to stay home and be the mum I want to be. That’s why I live for the school holidays.’ A survey by Gallup reveals that 56 per cent of American mothers would prefer to stay at home with their child. Arguably, a woman’s place is where she chooses to be. Instead, we’re seeing obligation dressed up as liberation because it happens to be ‘more profitable to set it up as the American Dream.’
Revealingly, when I asked the Mothers Union for an answer to the question: ‘Is childrearing now a luxury few millennials can afford?’ they declined to comment. Are conversations about motherhood becoming taboo? It was once against etiquette to ‘admit’ to not wanting a child. Everything seems to indicate the trend has been reversed. Today, it’s not a question of the challenges faced by working mums. The expectation for mothers to also be employed is the challenge. This, more than any childfree movement, explains the falling birthrates: parenting has been made a schlep.
Back to Basics
There is a way to resolve this crisis. A carer’s allowance and tax breaks would enable parents and guardians to stay home for more preschool years. That means fewer children in daycare, fewer daycare staff, and the costs of daycare reduced. Allowing parents to work from home when their kids are of school age would also facilitate parenting alongside breadwinning.
Of course, the reality is that inflation will continue, and even ‘cheaper’ childcare will still be costly. What’s the antidote? Volunteering. In Germany, 18-year-olds undertake a year of volunteering in return for ‘a legal social insurance (unemployment, pension, and health insurance)’. Young Germans volunteer in return for a more comfortable future, but here in the UK, the practice is never rewarded with anything substantial. This is precisely what needs to change. Childcare costs should be covered in exchange for a specified number of volunteering hours.
Our struggling volunteer sector would benefit from a huge number of hands on deck while young people gain invaluable work experience. Getting more young people on board could also help in the fight against misogyny by encouraging both sexes to volunteer in community projects — something that is only really asked of women. Volunteering at these nurseries can even figure in the general equation. Young people could buy childcare by providing some and receive a training ground for when (if) they become parents themselves and need to split parenting duties.
As for me and my experience of growing up, I always performed better at school with one parent at home. Being left alone was okay when you had Goosebumps for company. But what legacy can result from the systematic separation of parents and children? Entire generations are being raised not knowing their parents. This is hardly liberating, but this is what we get for wanting it all and believing the man in the white suit.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
